View Poll Results: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 37.50%
  • No

    110 62.50%
Page 31 of 45 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 443

Thread: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  1. #301
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    LOL. Again, it's not about the content of the speech and whether or not I agree with that content. It's about the effects of how the system is structured.
    What effects do you not like?

    That text actually does not indicate what you're saying that you think it does.
    I was referring to "it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole." What perverse results do you mean?

    Compelling national interest is an already a very well established reason for suppressing speech. So I am not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.
    But compelling national interest has a very specific legal meaning. It doesn't mean "I think things are bad."

    It's still not about what is said. It's not at all about the content of the speech. It's really not. It's about who is doing the "speaking" [the term is being used very loosely all of a sudden] and to whom in what circumstances.
    Doesn't matter about content. You don't like the results. Same principle. You can't have a law that says "the speech of X must be abridged because it leads to Y."

    Is it really that hard to distinguish between these two sets? Lobbying a member of govt {a corporation making donations to a political party or a PAC, a corporation taking a Congress critter golfing or on trip} and lobbying the electorate {that same corporation publishing an ad in a newspaper, buying airtime, creating a web site?}
    Well, see, now we've finally gotten to the point. Lobbying is NOT making donations or golf trips.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #302
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    You are being silly now. People do occasionally stand as independents and even more occasionally get elected. Britian's political parties used to be funded by party members but due to the lack of interest during the last 30 years as we become more and more right wing and people believe no one represents them, they have lost most of their members.
    So, let me get this straight. Independents aren't getting elected due to lack of interest, and that's money's fault, and I'm silly?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #303
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    "ultimately" or directly?
    Could you provide the source for your assertion on this matter.
    Contributions Brochure
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  4. #304
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    What effects do you not like?
    I was referring to "it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole." What perverse results do you mean?
    Re-re-posting this yet again.

    Rational Ignorance
    Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.
    As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them...
    You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists... According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.
    .
    What's worse is that the system is set such that Congress is playing the lobbyists for more money by screwing with our tax code to keep these businesses guessing and lobbying. The two groups--the legislators and the lobbyists--are screwing the country for their own benefit.

    And this

    Is money's deep role in politics the root of our woes? - CNN.com


    ...a few of the most striking facts he marshals are worth recognizing. Among them:-- ... from 1974 to 2008, Lessig notes, the average cost of a re-election campaign ballooned from $56,000 to more than $1.3 million, a more than twentyfold increase that far outpaces inflation.
    -- ...Candidates have to spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. (Lobbyists, however can ease this pressure through many kinds of what Lessig calls "legislative subsidies" -- advice, research, support, and most of all, campaign cash.)
    -- ... In the 1970s, just 3% of retiring members of Congress went into lobbying. But by 2004, in the previous seven years more than half of all senators and 42 percent of House members had made the switch.
    -- ...Business leaders argue, for example, that they are not investing as much as they might in new jobs because they face so much uncertainty that they don't know what to expect from the government from one year to the next.
    ... this complexity and uncertainty is no accident, and that's because politicians in Washington have an interest in keeping business...
    Pass a tax law for five years and lobbyists won't need to come around with contributions for a long time; make it a one-year law and they'll be back next week. ...keep the code incomprehensible, and the voters won't know if they're getting hosed.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    But compelling national interest has a very specific legal meaning. It doesn't mean "I think things are bad."
    That is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Well, see, now we've finally gotten to the point. Lobbying is NOT making donations or golf trips.
    Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?
    I may be wrong.

  5. #305
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Cite for this assertion please.
    http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #306
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    This doesn't reveal the totals or where they came from.

    This gives limits. It doesn't show how much money comes from real persons versus how much comes from artificial persons.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #307
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Re-re-posting this yet again.
    Not re-posting my response from a while back.

    That is true.
    And you seem to be wildly abusing it.

    Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?
    I'm trying to define a term, obviously. Well, actually, I asked you to. You haven't succeeded yet.

    Lobbyists do those things, but that doesn't make it "lobbying." Like you said, food comes from the sun, but it's not the sun.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #308
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf

    This shows that generally candidates get a plurality of their funding from artificial persons. I am not sure that actually helps your case that candidates fund themselves.
    I may be wrong.

  9. #309
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Not re-posting my response from a while back.
    Feel free.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Lobbyists do those things, but that doesn't make it "lobbying." Like you said, food comes from the sun, but it's not the sun.
    So lobbyists do these things for the fun of it? Or because it helps them to persuade the elected officials?
    I may be wrong.

  10. #310
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    This doesn't reveal the totals or where they came from.

    This gives limits. It doesn't show how much money comes from real persons versus how much comes from artificial persons.
    Yes it does. Scroll down. It shows the sources of the money with the limits for each source.

    See where the chart says "individual may give" etc? Those are the sources. None others are legal. You won't find any source that isn't a person, or doesn't get its funding in turn from a person. Ultimately, only individuals provide funding for the system. Corporations and unions and governments are all explicitly banned from giving money to any of these, or to candidates.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

Page 31 of 45 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •